General Hot Topics

[Tenarke]

Sorry to interrupt the poetry.

Interesting article in the NY Times.

It seems that the administration has finally decided to address the problem of a workable exit strategy in Iraq. Of course one requirement is that this must not appear to contradict any Presidential preconceptions.

www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/politics/10policy.html?pagewanted=1&th

Rummy is sending General Luck complete with silk hat to look for the rabbit.

Scowcroft, who successfully persuaded Georgie’s Dad not to go there, but failed to convince the Son; is predicting civil war and the possible dissolution of Iraq as we know it.

Our George is probably looking for a way to take some more time off down in Crawford away from the heat.

[RobertGraves]

Conservatives often suspect - or maybe it is more widespread - that we are running down hill fast and that society is doomed. Seems to be a spate of books on the horizon that suggest Western world is doomed unless we stop consuming so thoughtlessly, driving (literally) ourselves to deplete our environmental reserves and destroying the future.

I've never heard of Jane Jacobs but this article focuses on her and Jared Diamond's books or warnings about the future if we keep heading down our current path:
www.smh.com.au/news/Paul-Sheehan/Why-the-West-is-riding-for-a-fall/2005/01/14/1105582711593.html

[wordswordswords]

Jane Jacobs acquired many loyal fans when her book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, appeared in 1961.

There is more about her at:

archives.cnn.com/2000/books/news/11/23/jane.jacobs.ap/

[RobertGraves]

Thanks Words.

[RobertGraves]

I subscribe to this newszine and thought the following article on Australia's shameful and terrible failure to aid refugees, especially children would interest:

www.newmatilda.com/

A day of reflection

The tsunami struck on Boxing Day 2004. A couple of days later, while media coverage of the event was overwhelming every other news story, the Australian government deported two adults and sixchildren, under cover of darkness. The Bakhtiyari family had become a cause celebre, having failed in their attempt to gain asylum here.

If the family had been an ordinary family of failed asylum seekers, their removal from Australia could properly be seen as the orthodox operation of the Migration Act. However the case was not ordinary because it was notorious that the children had suffered terribly as a consequence of their incarceration by Australia and that, on any view of the facts, the children could not be blamed for their plight.

Opinions are sharply divided about the conduct of the parents: one camp says the parents were reckless opportunists, seeing to exploit Australia's generosity; the other camp says the parents did what any parent would do in order to save their children. There is substantial evidence that the family are genuine refugees; unfortunately, the debate was derailed by journalists onto the largely irrelevant question of whether the family came from Pakistan or Afghanistan. It is not in doubt that the Bakhtiyaris are Hazaras, an ethnic group whose territory runs diagonally across Afghanistan and into Pakistan, near Quetta. The Hazaras have been persecuted in both countries for centuries. Debating which side of the border they come from is as pointless as debating in 1939 whether a Jew came from Poland or Germany.

But whatever view might be taken of the parents' conduct in bringing the children here, it is clear that the children were vulnerable and innocent.

Like many other countries, Australia is a signatory to various international human rights instruments, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In our treatment of the Bakhtiyari family (and many others like them) we have breached the most important of the obligations we undertook in the Convention on the Rights of the Child*.

When Roquia Bakhtiyari was due to be confined with her sixth baby she was held under guard in a hospital in Adelaide, she was not allowed visitors or even flowers; she was not allowed to have a photograph of the baby when it was born.

Howard's technique is to assess the public mood, then exploit it to the full. Instead of acting as a leader might (by leading, for example) Howard follows the prevailing mood and thereby lends legitimacy to the sentiment of the mob. Unfortunately, public opinion frequently turns on a skewed or incomplete version of the facts. In any event, moral questions are not decided by majority vote.

Howard's approach is good for his government because it guarantees majority support. It is dangerous for human rights, because the groups whose human rights are at risk are always unpopular minorities. Human rights discourse makes no sense at all unless tested against the treatment of unpopular groups. Howard's approach sends an uncomfortable message to all those who might one day be part of an unpopular group – members of 'élites', for example; or people whose ideas are regarded as contrary to the public good, or people who criticise the government.

* The following obligations (abbreviated for clarity) are imposed on us by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Taking them in order of seriousness, we have breached all of them

Article 37(b): No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child...shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time

Article 37(c): Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age.

Article 19(1): take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or maltreatment...

Article 22(1): take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status...shall receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance

Article 6(2): ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Article 27: recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development

Article 31(1): recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child


About the author


Julian Burnside QC is a Melbourne barrister, specializing in commercial litigation and human rights.

[RobertGraves]

I had to edit the article due to posting restrictions and length.

[pinkozcat]

Ah - That is as maybe, Robert but there are two points which immediately spring to mind.

1. The government is voted for by the people and for the people however ignorant they are about world and local affairs and therefore one would hope that the legally elected government would carry out the will of the people, regardless of the opinions of what turned out recently to be an underwhelming minority.

2. John Howard has, by his strong stand on people smuggling, prevented thousands of people from incarceration in immigration camps.

I know that my political opinions are far to the right of yours and personally I abhor the necessity to put people behind barbed wire but we have to make a stand somewhere - every western democracy has a problem with illegal immigration and we are not the only country trying to stem the tide in any way we can.

This particular family, with encouragement from some groups of people, used the press to their own ends and your ezine article did not mention that the children were living in the community until 24 hours or so before they were deported.

[RobertGraves]

I do not agree Pinkozcat.

Why does Amnest International, GreenPeace, the UN etc. speak out aginst Howard's policy? We are wrong and breaking international as well as natural law. Democracies that have leaders appealing to baser instincts or fear are not good leaders.

Tell me - do you know the figures for illegal immigration during the period 1975 - 2004? How many people have attempted to come? I was shocked when I saw the numbers involved. If you do not know have a guess.

Also, how can we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan and then refuse those people fleeing tyrannical regimes aid?

I am a moderately left leaning liberal who often annoys the left-wingers I know with my points of view. John Howard is THE most right wing leader we have had since 1901 (by his own estimation).

BTW You would be happy that Kim returns?

[pinkozcat]

Robert - to be honest I don't care all that much about North Korea but I firmly believe that people get the government they deserve. Look at Iraq; did any more people die during Saddam Hussein's regime? I don't know but I can see a bloodbath fast approaching there. Perhaps the people were better off before American et al decided to 'improve' things there.

And you will probably be surprised to know that I never agreed that Australian troops should be sent to Iraq but I can clearly see the rational behind the decision. I understand that the Australians mainly took over traffic control at Baghdad airport and trained Iraqis to take over from them. And they guard the Australian Embassy so that people can legally apply to migrate to Australia.

I think that the French have the most laterally-thinking policy regarding refugees. They put them in a refugee camp right by the entrance to the chunnel and allow them to leave the camp during daylight hours in the hope that they will manage to make their way to England.

[RobertGraves]

North Korea???

Most Australians are not at all interested in politics until things go wrong for them so I guess we get the govt. we deserve too.

But for an accident of birth our children may have been the ones oppressed by dictatorial regimes that flourished due to American support (like in Afghanistan and Iraq). Remember, all these people are Iraqis and Afghans and they have been helped by smugglers but what else would you do? They would hardly get a visa from their govt. What was Oskar Schindler?

Anyway, you are right, a clear majority of Australians agree. But I think that bodes poorly for us as we grow more selfish.

[Wyndham]

A few semi-coherent thoughts.

I don't think that Australia, or the Anglosphere, or the Western world entire has the wealth to sort out the problems of the whole world -- not least because we'd end up fighting much of it perversely attempting to defend the causes of their own misery.

I tell myself too that my country, my society, is sort of like a gigantic trade union or insurance scheme. We've only really been doing much better than anybody else for two generations. This wealth is the product of people working hard, for a long long time. The system is fragile now, requires constant attention, and depends on people continuing to work hard. Another way of thinking about it is as a patrimony, or inheritance. Why should somebody who is not a member of the union, hasn't paid a premium, and isn't an heir, expect to share in the wealth by right? I live in a mid-sized Canadian city, sited in the most affluent part of what's probably the richest country on Earth, per capita. And yet if I want to see poverty, I don't have to turn on the news. I can walk downtown. I think those people have a greater claim on me than people on the other side of the world. I think when the Government sorts them out it can then, perhaps, adopt a more enlightened view to importing more poor, or sending more resources to foreign parts. What's the saying? Charity begins at home.

Certainly, I think, people elsewhere in need of assistance should be helped on a case by case basis. I don't think the wealth exists to save the world. I don't think the world wants to be saved -- if it did, it would save itself. I don't think importing trouble is necessarily the solution to any problem (more apt to smash my union, or bankrupt my insurance policy than anything). Legitimate refugees, certainly, need help, but I don't think that simple poverty is the standard; indeed, spend all your time and resources helping those simply poor, and you don't have much left over to assist those who really need it.

In the last few years, lastly, I've been arriving at a more 'nativist', less compassionate position. Why import trouble? Alot of people are poor and miserable, because they're all messed up. Many come from cultures that are all messed up. I have alot of friends who are cops and they tell horrific stories about crimes, the types of crimes in which various immigrant communities specialise, and the aggregate percentage of crimes of all sorts committed by new arrivals. Last thing we need are more Haitian drug dealers. Moreover, many who come appear to want the lifestyle NOW, but don't want to work for it and don't see why any cultural adaption on their part is necessary. A little cause celebre here right now is the determination of the Islamic community to get Sharia law accepted as the basis for mediation in divorce settlements. Yikes! Essentially under the Sharia, of course, the woman gets nothing, and is nothing in such a case. Opposition to this -- not least by Islamic women's groups -- is denounced generally as 'racism' or 'bigotry'. Why oppose it? Because every element of the monster is abhorrent to common law notions of equity, that's why. Why import trouble with people; particularly people who carry with them the germ of future trouble?

Even in the case in Robert's article. The family has six children. They would have, I'd guess, no real skills. Why should Australians pay -- what -- a hundred thousand a year in support all in for one family? Choices will be made. That 100K is a music program cancelled, or somebody's unemployment benefits. Even in charitable terms it makes no sense. Wouldn't the money spent on the ground in Pakistan help more people? What sort of monstrous nation detains children: what sort of monstrous parents put children in a position in which detention is probable?

Some other examples. Here in Canada, we never killed our Indians. Consensus was that they'd sink or swim by themselves. General assessment was that the culture would sink and the members be assimilated. That didn't happen. Culture went tits up; members languished. General misery ensued. Treaties were reinterpreted in a liberal direction. A weekly 'bag of flour' promised in 1850 became a weekly cheque in the 1950s. The right to hunt on crown land, became ownership of mineral rights on the land. At present, the quarter million treaty indians receive over 50K a year, per head, in government subsidy, apart from anything they might get for themselves A family of five, therefore, should get a quarter of a million dollars subsidy. 50K is the average wage of a working Canadian. They still live in misery. They just drink themselves to death more quickly, and with better booze. Its still our fault.

Day of the tsunami my understanding is that 150,000 might have died, but in effected areas more babies still were born. Population grew: that's the real disaster. Islamic clergy contines to exalt that Islam will soon be the biggest religion on earth -- most of its adherents living in utter squalor, but there it is. Judging by numbers, they'll be number one; but also number one in aggregate misery. They just don't get it. They can't be made to get it. Why cushion them from reality, even if the resources existed to do so? Cripes. One concert in Toronto raised more money for tsunami relief than the united governments of the Arab world provided. One cricket match in England raised more than Qatar, I believe. Thing just isn't right, and I feel less responsible than, maybe, I should. Yeah its ugly. Turning your back on a beggar is ugly too; but when is it kindness to say 'here's a sandwich, but sort yourself out man. Only thing anybody ever gave me was a job'.

Some interesting perspectives:

A British inner-city doctor reflecting on the reason for poverty:

www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html

More Mark Steyn on disaster relief:

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,11894914^7583,00.html

[RobertGraves]

Refugees: Wyndham and Pink's position(s) is pretty much how the Western world is feeling about the situation. Australia is in a different situation to most other countries in that we are so isolated and it is a helluva trip to get here. I reiterate that the the asylum seekers are Afghans and Iraqis with (mostly) legitimate claim to refugee status. We are not inundated with impoverished Indonesians or other poor, unskilled people from neighbouring states. Our policy is one that appeals to the public and is fueled by misinformation.

Here is some more information about the The Bakhtiyaris:
www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0412/S00265.htm
and their bill:
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200501/s1275505.htm

[RobertGraves]

Oh, and here's that same Doctor on drunkeness
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/01/04/do0401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/01/04/ixopinion.html

[RobertGraves]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4204915.stm

The spin is all positive from the BBC on Howard's/Australia's immigration policies.

[Tenarke]

Re: Dalrymple and drunkenness; I have been shaken to my very roots.

The UK is thinking of doing away with pub licensing hours? As an alien resident of London, back in my own twenties, mastery of London’s licensing hours and the then duodecimal money system was a sort of coming of age. Once these were mastered and made part of one’s daily cycle, you had arrived. You were no longer a tourist but a foreign resident.

What has happened to the UK and its devotion to tradition and custom? What will become of “Time, gentlemen – please, it’s time”?

What next; the monarchy?

Changing the subject then and with no apologies for abruptness; what about the Iraqi elections?

I have seen many different news stories about these and heard much on newscasts.

If I have it correctly, these elections will be for 175 members of what is in effect a constitutional convention. Out of this body in turn, will be written a new constitution, defining the new Iraq government. But, I also understand that a President, two Vice Presidents and eventually a Prime Minister will be determined.

What is unclear to me is how the new governing officers will be defined has been determined before the new constitution has defined the government itself.

On the scene reporters have commented that these elections are very peculiar due to security concerns. Apparently some party posters are to be seen in public but the identity of the candidates themselves has been suppressed for their own safety. No campaign speeches, no handshakes and not a single infant has been kissed.

I understand that the location of the polling places will be withheld until the day itself, also for security reasons.

If I have it correctly, the citizen courageous enough to find out where to go to vote and to actually go there will probably not find out who the candidates are or their arguments until he’s inside the booth. (I am assuming there will be booths.)

The question has been raised of the UN as to what criteria they will need to recognize these elections as legitimate. They have generously allowed that anything that satisfies the Iraqi people will be acceptable to them. But what are the odds of no Iraqi protests following these elections? Also, if the elections are not legitimate, who does represent the Iraqi people?

If a sufficient group of Iraqis do protest the legitimacy of the elections and the new Iraq is not recognized by the UN – what then?

And will the US Navy be able to spare another aircraft carrier for the President to properly proclaim his triumph?